Robert Lowery

Let me admit it up front: This post is going to be rather caustic. Perhaps I will regret it in the days ahead, but right now I want to reflect on the birthday of one of the most damaging study Bibles produced in America, The Scofield Reference Bible (KJV), first published in 1909. I am embarrassed to admit this, but Scofield’s study Bible was the one given to me as a child, and its teachings deeply influenced me for many years, to the point that I avoided studying Revelation.

There are many good study Bibles out there (NIV Quest Study Bible, The NIV Study Bible, and my current favorite, The English Standard Version Study Bible). Such Bibles can be incredibly helpful so long as readers know that the notes at the bottom of the pages are not inspired! What I have discovered is that many equate Scofield’s notes with Scripture! So sad!

Cyrus I. Scofield (1843-1921), a Kansas City lawyer with a sordid past, solidified the way dispensational premillennialism would be understood for decades to come, even into the twenty-first century. Scofield had no formal theological training, and it shows. (Not that I believe that one has to have such training, but it should help, and in his case, it would have helped!). He created a “study Bible” that contained extensive notes, cross references, and commentary so that the “scientific” nature of biblical prophecy would be evident to the average “layman.” With a group of editors assisting him, the tool was published in 1909. It has sold millions of copies over the years and, according to E. Sandeen in his fine book The Roots of Fundamentalism (p. 222), it is “perhaps the most influential single publication in millenarian and Fundamentalist historiography. . . . The book has . . . been subtly but powerfully influential in spreading [dispensational] views among hundreds of thousands who have regularly read the Bible and who often have been unaware of the distinction between ancient text and the Scofield interpretation.” Indeed, a popular witticism, sung to a favorite hymn, declared: “My hope is build on nothing less/Than Scofield’s Notes and Moody Press.” The updated version (Updated! Dispensationalists are always having to update something!), the New Scofield Reference Bible, printed in 1967, is still used today.

Between Dwight L. Moody and Scofield, the newfangled idea of the Rapture and various other theological innovations of John Nelson Darby (an Irish preacher who was also a former lawyer—What is it about lawyers and theology?) achieved tremendous popularity in our country, right up to the irresponsible and poorly written Left Behind novels, be they the original volumes or the prequels and sequels.

Consider Scofield’s conclusions: many passages are not meant—at least primarily—for Christians in the “Church age,” notably the Sermon on the Mount! (Note the exclamation points I am using in this piece; I think I am setting a personal record!) Like Darby, Scofield made a radical distinction between the Church and Old Testament Israel. Hence, most of Christ’s teachings were for the future Jewish Kingdom age, not for the Church. Did you know that Jesus is a “parenthetical insert” into history because salvation history has been detoured into the Church age until the Jewish people are ready to return to God? Did you know that Jesus did not intend to establish a Church, indeed that the very idea of a Church is that it is God’s plan “B” because the Jews of Jesus day rejected him as Messiah? (Now I know that there is a developing movement called “Progressive Dispensationalism,” but the damage has been done and continues to be done by the traditional dispensationalism championed by Scofield, Moody, LaHaye, Jenkins, Lindsey, Van Impe, etc.).

Scofield and his contemporaries believed that history could be more perfectly understood through analysis and categorization. Specifically, dispensationalists believed that history could be divided into a number of distinct eras in each of which the mode of God’s operations was unique. The eras were called dispensations. These dispensations are periods of time in which certain conditions were placed on mankind by God in order for salvation to be realized. Of course, proponents usually see seven dispensations! How surprising! You have the dispensations as Innocence (Adam), Conscience (post-Adam to the flood), Human Government ( Gentiles after the Flood1), Promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), Grace (Church age), and future Kingdom (the millennium).

Another key work by Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, published in 1896 outlines his approach. Here is what is ironic: Scofield’s approach is based upon the very poor King James Version translation of II Tim. 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Hence, in light of the underlined phrase, Scofield believed we are called upon to divide the history of the world into dispensations. Any first year Greek student who would offer a translation of II Tim. 2:15 in the way the KJV does would fail the assignment. The word translated “rightly dividing” means “correctly handling.” The verse calls upon students of Scripture to interpret properly, something Scofield consistently does not do.

Scofield’s notes continue to appeal because of the study Bible’s orderly structure, the appearance of accuracy in its commentary, and its direct appeal to the average reader.

There is little doubt that without the Scofield Reference Bible the theological and eschatological landscape of the United States would look quite different today. Indeed, it would look better, I believe.

Related posts:

1. A Century of Damage